Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

289 Horsepower?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Chip

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
Just curious, how much horsepower did the Mustangs with 289's
have? I am comparing them to the Studebaker 289 that had 215
with a 2 barrel and dual exhaust, and 245 with a 4 barrel and
duals. Chip

-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com


Stuart & Janet

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
2 barrel 289 was rated at 200 HP gross. 4 barrel was rated at 225 HP gross.
and the venerable HiPo 289 was rated at 271 HP gross (Shelby upped it to
306). You know the Studebaker is a completely different engine right? Shares
nothing but the CID number. StuK

--

Thunder Snake #11


Remove SPAMATRON9000 to reply by email

Chip <cjdaytonj...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:2e1290b6...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...

Brad

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
Chip wrote:
>
> Just curious, how much horsepower did the Mustangs with 289's
> have? I am comparing them to the Studebaker 289 that had 215
> with a 2 barrel and dual exhaust, and 245 with a 4 barrel and
> duals. Chip

271 gross hp. Probably low 200s net.

Chip

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
I do know. As a Studebaker owner, I get alot of people that
think the Stude 289 is a Ford engine. BTW, when bored out to a
304 with a Paxton supercharger, a 1964 Studebaker Challenger had
times around 13.22 and 106 mph at the Pure Stock Muscle Car drag
race. Not too shabby for a Studebaker. That engine was known as
an R3. Chip

335 Series

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
In article <014af16a...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>,

Chip <cjdaytonj...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
> I do know. As a Studebaker owner, I get alot of people that
> think the Stude 289 is a Ford engine. BTW, when bored out to a
> 304 with a Paxton supercharger, a 1964 Studebaker Challenger had
> times around 13.22 and 106 mph at the Pure Stock Muscle Car drag
> race. Not too shabby for a Studebaker. That engine was known as
> an R3. Chip

And it ran even better in the Avanti :-)

Marcus
68 Mustang has moved 10 feet in ten months, great on gas mileage
sprayed 351C coming sooner or later, 4 spd swap "in the works"
http://www.geocities.com/fordracing68 *updated* 6-22-00


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Stuart & Janet

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
Cool, the Stude made descent HP. I think the real benefit the Ford has over
the Stude is it was a more modern design, thus a lighter motor. StuK

--

Thunder Snake #11


Remove SPAMATRON9000 to reply by email

Chip <cjdaytonj...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:014af16a...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...


> I do know. As a Studebaker owner, I get alot of people that
> think the Stude 289 is a Ford engine. BTW, when bored out to a
> 304 with a Paxton supercharger, a 1964 Studebaker Challenger had
> times around 13.22 and 106 mph at the Pure Stock Muscle Car drag
> race. Not too shabby for a Studebaker. That engine was known as
> an R3. Chip
>
>
>

Chip

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
It is my understanding that the Stude 289 weighs in at about
650 lbs. What about the Ford? Chip

nosmatt

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
a fully dressed small block windsor- 221-260-289-302 weighs about 450lbs
wet.
the 351 windsor adds about another 80-95 lbs depending on many factors.
good luck


JRyan92795

unread,
Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00
to
I ran one in the 60's with a 71 hp , aded Hooker headers, full race Isky solid
cam, mallory dual point distributor, 2 different manifollds, an offy with 2
carter afb's and an aluminum ( don't remember brand with a big holley) Never
knew what HP it had but I remember blowing away a lot of cars, the best of
which was a 70 454 Chevelle cowl inducted monster! 340 Dusters were snacks!

0 new messages